F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

[glavas]

its called foreign policy.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by glavas

its called foreign policy.

We would do exactly the same. At the moment we are allies but what happens in the future is anyones guess. Why would you show anyone else your best card.

[ltd_on20s]

if the US wouldn't sell us the plane we wanted, we should have gone elsewhere.

but thats bum sniffing government officials for you.

[TruBlu351]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

if the US wouldn't sell us the plane we wanted, we should have gone elsewhere.

but thats bum sniffing government officials for you.

F22 you referring to? Nobody else has a 5th Gen stealth/low observable fighter to offer anyway.....all the others are just 4th gen technology.......granted they can do a lot of good stuff with some gucci black boxes inside, but the race was to try and fill the gap with some stealth technology. Buying things off paper is always a catch 22.....even on civvy street with many airlines putting their eggs in the the new composite Boeing 787 basket for example.....they promise everything, but they are years behind schedule.

The US Marines, who are a big customer for the JSF, have been operating the single engine Harrier for decades off their amphibious assault ships. But that thing is just a light attack aircraft anyway.....I'll leave the hovering to egg beaters! But the USMC also operates F18's which hang out on the US Navy carriers.

Being able to go into a fight with people not being able to pick you up on radar, or at least until very late, is a huge tactical advantage.

Would be interesting to see where Boeing's version of the JSF would be today it that was chosen instead of Lockheed Martin's F35 proposal.....but it was assumed that LM already had their sock in a pile....building on their F22 experience.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by TruBlu351

The US Marines, who are a big customer for the JSF, have been operating the single engine Harrier for decades off their amphibious assault ships. But that thing is just a light attack aircraft anyway.....I'll leave the hovering to egg beaters! But the USMC also operates F18's which hang out on the US Navy carriers.

Being able to go into a fight with people not being able to pick you up on radar, or at least until very late, is a huge tactical advantage.

So is the F-35... its a CAS aircraft at best. Not a front line fighter or even a bomber.... which again why its unsuited to Australia.

The F-35 by definition isnt a steath aircraft... its "low observeable" meaning its radar cross section is pretty low. But again once you hang bombs from its wings, it looses ALL its qualities and its radar cross section will be just as bad as an F18.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

and certianly DMO, Defence and the Australian Gov in general has shown us how poorly some of the decisions have been over the decades when it comes down to buying stuff for defence....

....... 2nd hand refurbished main battle tanks (been better off with smaller one but hey)

Rubbish comment, M1A1 AIM SA is great value for money as far as a MTB goes, these are rebuild to new, so saying they are '2nd hand' is misleading. They are a zero miles as new tank.

Perhaps a 2nd had leopard 2 or Challenger 2 should have been purchased out of "old stock" for twice the price ?

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

Rubbish comment, M1A1 AIM SA is great value for money as far as a MTB goes, these are rebuild to new, so saying they are '2nd hand' is misleading. They are a zero miles as new tank.

Perhaps a 2nd had leopard 2 or Challenger 2 should have been purchased out of "old stock" for twice the price ?

Funny how you cut out the rest of my sentance?
Which referred to the fact that when these things were bought, there was NO WAY TO TRANSPORT THEM ANYWHERE because as per usual someone DIDNT THINK ABOUT how heavy and wide they are.
These things are very deployable... can only carry one in a C17 which isnt very bright.

I did say... refurbished as well... and again what does Australia need with a a main battle tank? In what theatre of operations will we ever use one? And how will we get there?

[74_XB_Ute]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

and certianly DMO, Defence and the Australian Gov in general has shown us how poorly some of the decisions have been over the decades when it comes down to buying stuff for defence....

Definately Jim.

AGM-142 for example. Massive man hours of ground and flight testing, pylon modifications, aircraft software.....only to have the platform for carriage buried in the hills of Ipswich 4 years later.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Funny how you cut out the rest of my sentance?
Which referred to the fact that when these things were bought, there was NO WAY TO TRANSPORT THEM ANYWHERE because as per usual someone DIDNT THINK ABOUT how heavy and wide they are.
These things are very deployable... can only carry one in a C17 which isnt very bright.

I did say... refurbished as well... and again what does Australia need with a a main battle tank? In what theatre of operations will we ever use one? And how will we get there?

Good point about moving them...you should have seen the long wide transport low loaders and the escorts they used taking them along the Capricorn Highway out here...they were wider than some of the mining machinery you see on the road out here being moved. I can only imagine the chaos trying to move a lot of them all at once...

[Road_Warrior]

Any modern heavyweight tank procurement would have required new low loaders and equipment, the Leopard I was a lightweight in comparison to modern tanks like the Abrams, Challenger II, Merkava etc. Even the Leopard II is a heavy bastard, heavier than the Abrams I think so arguing about the combat weight of it is irrelevant considering an alternative purchase would have had the same or similar requirement.

They only have enough low loaders to move a small number of them at once, but there is sufficient railway rolling stock in Australia to move larger numbers of them if they need to - and don't forget all of Australia (apart from NW WA) is connected by rail now.

All well and good saying Australia doesn't need an MBT, it's like saying you don't need insurance when you drive your car on the streets, but you don't know what could be lurking in the future...

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Funny how you cut out the rest of my sentance?
Which referred to the fact that when these things were bought, there was NO WAY TO TRANSPORT THEM ANYWHERE because as per usual someone DIDNT THINK ABOUT how heavy and wide they are.
These things are very deployable... can only carry one in a C17 which isnt very bright.

I did say... refurbished as well... and again what does Australia need with a a main battle tank? In what theatre of operations will we ever use one? And how will we get there?

Yep I cut out the bits except for the bit where you try to improve your argument by making "throw away" claims.

In the end though, "Haters gonna Hate", so I guess we should have gone for the new "Jim Goose 'light weight' MBT".

Here's some light reading for you

http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2007-08_Audit_Report_1.pdf

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

Yep I cut out the bits except for the bit where you try to improve your argument by making "throw away" claims.

In the end though, "Haters gonna Hate", so I guess we should have gone for the new "Jim Goose 'light weight' MBT".

Here's some light reading for you

http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2007-08_Audit_Report_1.pdf

Throw away claims??
read the report and?
which bit?

THE army's newest frontline weapon, the Abrams battle tank, arrived in Australia yesterday and immediately encountered problems, with no rail transport available to carry the tank to the Northern Territory. Its deployment will be further hampered because, at 68 tonnes, the Abrams is too heavy to travel across road bridges in the Northern Territory.
As the first 18 of the tanks were delivered to Port Melbourne, the operators of the Adelaide-to-Darwin railway said they lacked the equipment to carry them. Adelaide-based Freightlink said the tanks were too big.

"Freightlink has participated in a rail study with the implication for new rolling stock to be acquired," the company said.

It did not say when or if it intended to acquire the required rolling stock and suggested it was waiting for contracts to be signed with the Defence Department before going ahead with the purchase. A total of 59 refurbished tanks were bought from the US for $500 million.

Transporting them north by road is likely to be problematic.

A senior Northern Territory shire engineer said road bridges in the Katherine Shire had a maximum capacity of 50 tonnes, 18 tonnes less than the weight of one Abrams tank. Road trains weighing up to 50 tonnes are able to use the bridges by disconnecting a trailer, he said.

The tanks, described by federal Defence Minister Brendan Nelson as the best in the world, have a fuel economy as low as 200m alitre.

While the US-made tank provides unmatched protection for its crew of four, experts claim its jet turbine engine is three times more expensive to run than the diesel engines in the army's ageing Leopard 1s. A Defence spokesman said the Abrams's 2200-litre fuel tanks ensured they had a similar range to the Leopards and that an additional eight refuelling trucks would be provided to the army's 1st Armoured Regiment in Darwin.

Critics also claim the Abrams's high heat emission will constrict its ability to work with infantry in urban areas.

But a Defence Department spokesman said the Australian Abrams had been designed to minimise their heat emission to a level comparable to diesel-powered tanks.

Army mechanics will be kept busy if the US army experience is any guide. It allocates 25 per cent of its maintenance budget for ground combat systems to fixing Abrams gas turbine engines.

But Dr Nelson says the Abrams still offers the best value. "These tanks are the most advanced and capable in the world. This capability will be increasingly important as widespread proliferation of cheap, high-tech and lethal anti-armour, anti-personnel weapons could pose an increasing threat in any future conflict," he said.

Federal Opposition defence spokesman Robert McClelland questioned the need for such a large tank.

"The wisdom of the Abrams acquisition has to be questioned in the light of the limited use they are going to have in our region," he said.

"And specifically, in the light of the logistical issues they are going to present to the ADF simply within Australia."

The Abrams contract forms part of the Defence Department's new "hardened and networked" initiative to beef up the army's hardware.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20460399-2,00.html

But of course.. everything is good isnt it?
A new toy.. which is very difficult to take anywhere, expensive to run, needs a lot of support vehicles.... again missing the bigger picture.
Again when will we ever need a main battle tank?

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Throw away claims??
read the report and?
which bit?



http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20460399-2,00.html

But of course.. everything is good isnt it?
A new toy.. which is very difficult to take anywhere, expensive to run, needs a lot of support vehicles.... again missing the bigger picture.
Again when will we ever need a main battle tank?

"2nd Hand" Throw away Claim .......

You win, you're a defence expert, we obviously need YOU as Chief of the defence force...

Oh and Mark Dodd (Expert No. 2) can bring you tea and biscuits while you organise those "Light weight" MTB's...

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

"2nd Hand" Throw away Claim .......

You win, you're a defence expert, we obviously need YOU as Chief of the defence force...

Oh and Mark Dodd (Expert No. 2) can bring you tea and biscuits while you organise those "Light weight" MTB's...

oh thats right... you need to be an expert to have an opinion or a view....

sadly my lowly paid position in defence doesnt entitle me to speak out doesnt it?

Or perhaps you work at DMO?

Either way... dont really care.

[Franco Cozzo]

Isn't the Abrams one of the best tanks in the world?

Yes, when are we going to use an MBT, maybe so.

But when are we going to use a fleet of fighter jets as well, plus all the other stuff the military has, hell, maybe we should just have the bare essentials, one or two batallions for deployment to Afghanistan or any other current small war we're involved in, kick everyone else out because they're not "needed" and sell everything else, save heaps of money that way.

Maybe they should devise a plan for transport of the Abrams tanks then and actually act upon it.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the best we can get just in case we are involved in a serious war.

[Jim Goose]

There is "buying the best"...and not being able to use it properly.. and sending us broke.... or "buying the best we can afford" and actually get to use it.

The JSF is a good case... it certainly isnt the best... was never offered to Australia.... isnt proven... severly over budget.... hard to maintain.... not a front line fighter... yet we are buying it.

The Seasprite where nearly $1BILLION was wasted towards a bunch of 2nd hand helicopters (some built in the late 1980s!) was certainly NOT the best... in the end they were scrapped and never used.

The Armys MRH90 is now plauged with issues and 2yrs behind.
The Tiger as well.

[TruBlu351]

We're gonna get some Super Tucanos to fill the gaps! Cheap as chips

[ltd_on20s]

australia methinks needs a lightweight, and ultra fast defence force.

we don't have the manpower to stop a full on invasion. it's just the way it is.

speed and invisibility are our main strengths.

abrams tanks are too heavy will just either get bogged, or get taken out real fast.

we would have been better off, and cheaper to buy the latest MIG-29 as well...

[TruBlu351]

That older Russian gear is some of the MOST unergonomic stuff to fly and fight with. Classic and Super Hornets would give them a spanking......in the right hands of course ;) Logisitical support can be a nightmare too. Still a fair bit of old technology on those.

That crocodile infested mote around the topend is a tough barrier to get through. Just gotta watch those bros across the dutch.

But you're right, there's a lot of terrain to cover from Exmouth to Cairns.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

to move a small number of them at once, but there is sufficient railway rolling stock in Australia to move larger numbers of them if they need to - and don't forget all of Australia (apart from NW WA) is connected by rail now.

They won't fit on the rail corridors...most of the coastal railways have electric overhead lines, and won't allow tall loads...as for wide loads like a tank on a flatbed wagon, they won't allow two trains to pass if you had that big wide thing hanging over the narrow 3'6" gauge here in Queensland...

[SB076]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

australia methinks needs a lightweight, and ultra fast defence force.

we don't have the manpower to stop a full on invasion. it's just the way it is.

speed and invisibility are our main strengths.

abrams tanks are too heavy will just either get bogged, or get taken out real fast.

we would have been better off, and cheaper to buy the latest MIG-29 as well...

Abrams tanks arent bad they are a deterent, they also allow our troops to particpate and intergrate into global operations. They are not that easy to take out. As for transport issues, I followed a few trucks from Port Melbourne (just happened to be going that way) They seemed to tranport ok, most MBT's would have similiar issues. I dont think its the worse purchase MoD have made - Seasprites win that award. I think sadly going over schedule and over budget is almost the norm for military acquisitions.

If Australia was to try to repel a full on invasion our best bet would be to stop them before land - Use JORN and Wedgetail etc to spot track and then throw everything we have at them. Sadly once we have done that we are stuffed as we have only very limited ability to manufacture munitions.

[My poor XF]

Originally Posted by TruBlu351

That older Russian gear is some of the MOST unergonomic stuff to fly and fight with. Classic and Super Hornets would give them a spanking......in the right hands of course ;)

Sure about that?

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

And more about the JSF project

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

[SB076]

Originally Posted by My poor XF

Sure about that?

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

And more about the JSF project

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

Good read, hopefully in the not to distant future US allows and Australia agrees to purchasing the F22

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by SB076

Good read, hopefully in the not to distant future US allows and Australia agrees to purchasing the F22

No deal... the F22 stopped being made last year.

[TruBlu351]

Originally Posted by My poor XF

Sure about that?

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

Yes

When you posted that link, I immediately thought to myself, I bet he's found some old article written by good old "Doctor" Carlo Kopp!!.....and what do ya know.....right on the money!!

Just type "Carlo Kopp Idiot" into google and see what pops up

That whole article is one of him shooting long range "assumptions" from the hip. LOTS of "ifs", "buts", "in the future the Flanker will....", "potentially the Flanker....", "google says...."

I will agree that performance wise, the thrust vectoring Flanker variant would be a formidable opponent during a knife fight in a phone booth.....but dog fighting these days isn't just about playing "tag, you're it." With a helmet mounted sight and high off boresight weapons (which both aircraft have), "turning and burning" as it were 10 years ago with old school "heaters and guns" is something of the past - where you had to actually point your jet at the opponent to get a shot off - and the first one who does that wins. These days, you don't need to point anywhere near the other guy so no need for an ultra high performance jet to get an early shot, although it would be like putting a 600hp Clevo in an Escort.......technology works wonders! So that closing throw-away statment of the Super Hornet now being uncompetitive is rubbish.

Currently, with reference to radar cross section, a Super Hornet would be just that in comparison to a Flanker....like trying to pick up a small bug. The radar and other avionics of a Super Hornet out-class a Flanker.....as Mr Kopp clearly points out.

Carlo quotes a lot of Russian weapons etc, but nowhere does be make an exact comprison to the amraam throwing Super Hornet. Firstly, the Flanker probably isn't even going to see a Super Hornet within some of those max missile ranges anyway....so that kinda takes that advantage away.

Western technology has the edge.....and having some "high speed" black boxes down the back is a huge advantage.

All those missile ranges are predicated on a Flanker shooting a non manoeuvring supersonic baby seal that is blind

[Franco Cozzo]

Was it a few years back where the company which does the SU-34 or similar offered us to set up manufacturing/repairs here if we went with their plane?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Was it a few years back where the company which does the SU-34 or similar offered us to set up manufacturing/repairs here if we went with their plane?

As I recall, at the very beginning of AIR6000 (fast jet replacement program) the SU-35 was in the mix, along with a whole bunch of other randoms like some Mirage variant and an Israeli fighter.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

They won't fit on the rail corridors...most of the coastal railways have electric overhead lines, and won't allow tall loads...as for wide loads like a tank on a flatbed wagon, they won't allow two trains to pass if you had that big wide thing hanging over the narrow 3'6" gauge here in Queensland...

Good thing the Abrams arent based in QLD then...

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Was it a few years back where the company which does the SU-34 or similar offered us to set up manufacturing/repairs here if we went with their plane?

Yes it was offered to the RAAF as well as a licence to build.

There was 4 aircraft on the short list and pretty sure it was the rafale, F15S(?), EFA and the Su-30 series...

As I recall, at the very beginning of AIR6000 (fast jet replacement program) the SU-35 was in the mix, along with a whole bunch of other randoms like some Mirage variant and an Israeli fighter.

The Rafale was the french aircraft on offer and Israel doesnt make its own fighters (other then the failed LAVI).

Good thing the Abrams arent based in QLD then...

That right they are not... but tell me how they are going to move them here in a hurry if ever there is a need?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

That right they are not... but tell me how they are going to move them here in a hurry if ever there is a need?

I'm trying to think of any sort of real contingency short of the scenario in that silly kids movie that would require MBT's to be deployed to coastal QLD...

[Jim Goose]

oh wait..... we are falling back to the brisbane line! lol